PREFACE. ix
most of the mistakes which Professor Wilson's article undoubtedly contains, and which in some instances have been reproduced also in subsequent accounts of Kaémirian history.
Even before Professor Wilson’s Essay was published Mr. Moorcrort, the traveller, had made a successful endeavour in Kaémir itself to obtain better textual materials, During his sojourn in S'rinagar, in 1823, he hed a Devanagari tran- script prepared from an old S'aradé manuscript which, as I have shown elsewhere, was no other than the codex archstypus of all extant Kaémirian manuscripts. Noverthelesa, the editio princeps of the Rajataraigini, which appeared in 1835 under the auspices of the Asiatic Society, Bongal, and which was mainly based on Mr. Mooreroft’s transcript, failed to furnish a critically reliable text of the Chronicle. The corruptions of all kinds which appear through the whale of the Calcutta edition, and which render ite text wholly unintelligible in many passages, can easily be traced to two main causes. The numerous mistakes plainly due to faulty transcription from S’areda into Devanagari characters show that Mr. Moorcroft’s copy shared the usual defects of all Devanagari manuscripts prepared in Keémir. But it is equally evident also that the Calcutta Pandits, unable to follow in many places the details of Kalhane’s narrative owing to want of familiarity with the topography, traditions, and other local lore of Kasmir, had frequently altered the text in an unscrupulous manner.
Tn 1840 Mr. A, TRovER, who, while Principal of the Calcutta Sanskrit College had occasion to become acquainted with the labours preceding the issue of the editio princeps, began the publication of a new edition of the text and of a French translation under the auspices of the Société Asiatique at Paris, This edition was prepared practically from the same materials es those used at Calcutta, and was not carried beyond the first six Books, His translation, however, accompanied by elaborate historical and geographical dissertations, was completed in 1852.
Tt is unnecessary to discuss at length the grave defects which characterize this, the main portion, of Mr. Troyer's work; for they have long ago been recog- nized by all quelified Sanskritists. Though the patient industry and perseverance of the aged scholar may justly claim our admiration, we must acknowledge with Professor Buhler, the most competent and fairest of judges, thet Mr. Troyer who “has seldom been able to make out the meaning of the text except where Kalhana uses the simplest, plainest language,” had undertaken a task very much beyond his strength. The most striking of tho translator's shortcomings directly result from a want of proper preparation, easily intelligible in view of the peculiar
® See Bunter, Report, p. 56. See Buuren, Report, p. 55,
